Two big reasons: 1) Companies like Intel pay people to work on Linux because they're in the business of selling hardware, not software (usually), and want people to use their products for running Linux. 2) Companies like Red Hat contribute to the open-source software, and then make a business out of selling support contracts and services. If there's no software, there's nothing to sell expensive enterprise service contracts for.
If you complain about the interface You're told you aren't the target audience. [gimpusers.com]
I could be wrong, but the Alexandre guy there telling the other guy he's not the target audience does not appear to be a GIMP developer himself, just a user.
Exactly. People keep trying to use the disaster that is Gnome3, and then bitch about all the changes, even though the Gnome devs have been going in this direction for over a decade now, ever since they conducted their vaunted "usability tests".
If you don't like Gnome3, don't use it! Switch to KDE instead. It hasn't had a significant UI change in many years (and they just add more stuff anyway, which you can disable and/or ignore, they're basically the opposite mindset as the minimalism-loving Gnome devs).
I don't get it either, it's just people bitching about minor UI changes as far as I can tell. There's two "big" things that changed: the tabs are on top of the URL bar now (which they copied from Chrome), and the menu is hidden, and appears when you press Alt (which is partially copied from Chome, which eliminated the menu altogether, so FF's design is really a compromise, and a decent one IMO as vertical screen real estate is important in a browser). That's really it. That's nothing at all like the changes seen in, for instance, Gnome.
The hipsters can't stand for usable software, of course. It needed to be "improved"! This is what gedit looks like more recently
This isn't "open source hipsters", this is the GNOME team. They are infamous for this shit. Just look at the whole Gnome3 UI, it's the same shit.
Switch to KDE, and try out the kate editor. You won't see that kind of silliness with KDE projects. Not all open source projects are run by the same kind of people, the Gnome devs are really exceptional.
I disagree. When you're CEO, you now have a big golden parachute. So you can quit at any time and live an extremely comfortable lifestyle in your mansion and/or on your megayacht, and not have a care in the world about having to go without. That's not a dead end, that's a pot at the end of the rainbow.
Everyone else has to worry about saving enough for retirement so they aren't eating cat food when they're old.
Also if you have any interest in moving into more of a leadership type roll, even if you want to stay mostly technical (i.e. technical lead, software architect) social skills become even more important.
Apparently spelling and grammar skills aren't that important.
Please read my other posts - not only did I not complain about a shortage, I went so far as to say that I don't really think there is a shortage.
Sorry, I was only responding to your one post, and assuming that like so many other managers that you might buy into the whole tech-worker shortage idea.
Regardless, I think you're missing my point: my position is that some people, no matter how good their skills are, are a *net negative*,
I agree, at least the way modern companies do their management. I think it's entirely possible to get such people to be productive assets to the company, but almost no companies want to bother actually developing the people-management skills necessary to do so. It can't be done the way companies currently manage employees, and would probably require hiring a bunch of psychologists and developing the appropriate management methods, instead of what companies do now, which is basically take technically-skilled people, and simply promote them into management without any regard for actual skill at dealing with people.
But is it putting an emphasis on people who are easy to manage? Absolutely. Anything else is insanity. I run a business, not some volunteer organization where you work with whatever you've got.
Well it just depends on how much you want to invest in people, and how much you think you'll get out of them with that investment. With some brilliant people who are really, really hard to manage (requiring developing all-new management skills as I outlined above), you'll have to invest a lot of time and money and energy, but who knows, maybe you'll get some really brilliant new products that make your company a fortune. Of course, that's a big gamble. Maybe you'll get less out than other companies that take a safe route, or worse maybe your reinvented-management initiative will be a giant failure. But so many companies keep repeating this "tech worker shortage" mantra, so if there really were such a shortage, they should be doing just as I said, regardless of the risk, because a hard-to-manage employee is better than no employee at all.
That's fine, but then you have zero right to complain about a tech labor "shortage". If there's a shortage, then you should be hiring anyone who's qualified, no matter how bad their interpersonal skills are. It's your job as management to help them succeed as part of the team, and if you can't do that, then you are incompetent.
If you want to take the easy route and only hire people who are easy to manage, that's your prerogative, but you can't complain about any kind of shortage if you do this.
And there is no damn good reason to HAVE to press another key to see the menu bar. Just like how there was no good reason to move tabs above the menu bar,
Yeah, whatever. My point is: these things are very minor changes, and not really that big a deal, when you compare to the Gnome3 UI and what a radical departure it is from traditional desktop UIs.
To make a useless car analogy, you're like someone bitching and complaining about Toyotas changing to a slightly uglier headlight design while GM is making all their vehicles look like Azteks and painting them carnival colors.
You may think it's a joke, but it's not. They may be legally "wives", but in reality many women are just prostitutes. Here's a quick guide to tell the difference: 1) does she bring any significant money into the household herself, or does she just spend all the money you earn? 2) do you actually have a close emotional relationship with her, as in, is she someone who would help you bury a body? Or is she just a house partner and FWB?
They've all become rotten hipster cults, in my opinion. Mozilla is particularly bad. They've trashed the UI of their most popular product, to an extent that only hipsters can manage. They've employed a strict "we know better than you" hipster attitude toward user complaints about these changes.
You've got to be kidding. The Firefox UI is barely different really. Big deal, you have to press "Alt" to see the menu bar now; whoopee. If you want to see a trashed UI and "we know better than you", GNOME is the poster boy for this stuff.
They've forced out at least one long-time, high-ranking leader merely because his views on an unrelated political matter didn't match their hipster ultra-politically correct beliefs.
No, they forced out their CEO because there was way too much controversy surrounding him. Mozilla isn't just some open-source project like Debian or Gentoo or whatever, it's a full-fledged corporation, and corporate CEOs are partially political positions. You can't have that position filled by someone who doesn't match the publicly-stated corporate values, who makes the corporation look bad, who attracts too much negative attention, etc. Any other for-profit corporation would have done the same in their position, except maybe some crappy company like Comcast which doesn't give a shit about what people think of it since it's a monopoly. Mozilla may be a corporation, but they're a non-profit and funding is critically important to them and public image goes hand-in-hand with that. A bad public image will kill their funding.
This is an entirely different matter than some random FOSS project playing political games with their leadership. Groups like Slackware don't deal with much money or employees, and can do whatever the hell they want. Mozilla isn't like that; it's a corporation.
systemd wasn't fixing something that wasn't broken; sysvinit is archaic and has a lot of problems, and it's amazing it's worked as well as it has. Every other UNIX out there has switched to something resembling systemd already. Solaris has SMF, for instance.
The problem with systemd is likely that it tried to do too much, too fast, and attracted a lot of negative attention because of this (also, by enlarging its scope so fast, it's not possible to do as much in-the-field testing, so there's a higher potential for bugs). The overall idea is sound, but the execution could have been done differently.
That's great (though not what I'd call "conservative"), but it doesn't address sales tax, which is a state and local level issue, and was only being considered federally (with this bill) because so many states were pissed about it. They need to just dump sales tax altogether (i.e., ban it at the federal level), and if a consumption tax really is necessary, then levy it at the federal level only as a VAT just like every other first-world country does. A single VAT (payable to a single governmental entitiy) would be fairly simple for internet merchants to deal with, and would eliminate all the avoidance of use taxes. But if they're going to keep their crazy and arcane scheme of sales taxes with 10,000 jurisdictions, forget it. And the idea of requiring merchants to use a third-party processor to handle sales taxes is wrong too, since 1) that processor won't know what is and isn't taxable except for some general things (i.e. shipping), and 2) requiring people to use particular for-profit businesses is fascism.
So you prefer fucking over poorer people with regressive sales taxes, and letting the rich off easy, and somehow the poorer classes should be the ones doing all the sacrificing? Got it.
People like you are why this country is in a mess. You spout shit like "taking the good with the bad" and because of this you advocate horrible legislation that would put an undue burden on small-business owners, giving a huge advantage to big businesses like Amazon and local big-box stores. There's 10,000 tax jurisdictions in the US, each one with completely different rules about what can be taxed, and at what rate. In some states, shipping is taxable, in others it isn't. In some states, clothing is taxable, in others it isn't. In some states certain items have a lower tax. How the hell is some small-business owner supposed to figure all that out for 10,000 different jurisdictions?
And why do stupid liberals like you love sales taxes so much anyway? They're the most regressive form of taxation and hurt poor people the most. Obviously you're OK with making the poor working-class stiffs take the good with the bad, while letting your ultra-rich cronies at Comcast and Citibank off.
But there is an argument that physical retailers are unfairly hurt when people can use them as showroom and then go online and purchase the items without sales tax.
Too bad. Have you forgotten about shipping charges? If the retailer's price with sales tax is higher than the online price with shipping costs (plus the inconvenience factor of having to fumble around on web sites and then wait a week for it to arrive, unless you pay even more for faster shipping), then the retailer is charging too much and deserves to go under.
It's not that at all, it's that this is one of the (probably few) issues where Republicans simply have the right idea, and Democrats are firmly in the wrong.
Another issue where Democrats are totally wrong is with patent reform. The Repubs want to reform the patent system somewhat to stop patent trolls, while the Dems apparently love patent trolls and have blocked this reform.
Won't work, for the reasons the AC responder said. This company won't know whether your product/service is taxable or not, or if it needs to be taxed at a different rate, etc. They're not going to employ human representatives to look at every single thing you sell and make a determination.
Here's my suggestion: all the states have to agree on a single tax rate, nationwide, and a single set of rules (e.g., groceries are not taxable, clothing isn't taxable or is reduced, etc.). Then there's a single federal-level agency where the tax money is remitted and distributed to the right state. No localities can levy additional sales taxes. Until all this happens, no nationwide sales tax is allowed.
No, it sounds like gridlock is actually better. Without gridlock, we'd get a Congress that would pass an internet sales tax bill. With gridlock, the bill dies, which is exactly what I want to see happen.
So strangely, I actually have to cheer for the Republican takeover on this issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Two big reasons:
1) Companies like Intel pay people to work on Linux because they're in the business of selling hardware, not software (usually), and want people to use their products for running Linux.
2) Companies like Red Hat contribute to the open-source software, and then make a business out of selling support contracts and services. If there's no software, there's nothing to sell expensive enterprise service contracts for.
If you complain about the interface You're told you aren't the target audience. [gimpusers.com]
I could be wrong, but the Alexandre guy there telling the other guy he's not the target audience does not appear to be a GIMP developer himself, just a user.
Exactly. People keep trying to use the disaster that is Gnome3, and then bitch about all the changes, even though the Gnome devs have been going in this direction for over a decade now, ever since they conducted their vaunted "usability tests".
If you don't like Gnome3, don't use it! Switch to KDE instead. It hasn't had a significant UI change in many years (and they just add more stuff anyway, which you can disable and/or ignore, they're basically the opposite mindset as the minimalism-loving Gnome devs).
I don't get it either, it's just people bitching about minor UI changes as far as I can tell. There's two "big" things that changed: the tabs are on top of the URL bar now (which they copied from Chrome), and the menu is hidden, and appears when you press Alt (which is partially copied from Chome, which eliminated the menu altogether, so FF's design is really a compromise, and a decent one IMO as vertical screen real estate is important in a browser). That's really it. That's nothing at all like the changes seen in, for instance, Gnome.
The hipsters can't stand for usable software, of course. It needed to be "improved"!
This is what gedit looks like more recently
This isn't "open source hipsters", this is the GNOME team. They are infamous for this shit. Just look at the whole Gnome3 UI, it's the same shit.
Switch to KDE, and try out the kate editor. You won't see that kind of silliness with KDE projects. Not all open source projects are run by the same kind of people, the Gnome devs are really exceptional.
I disagree. When you're CEO, you now have a big golden parachute. So you can quit at any time and live an extremely comfortable lifestyle in your mansion and/or on your megayacht, and not have a care in the world about having to go without. That's not a dead end, that's a pot at the end of the rainbow.
Everyone else has to worry about saving enough for retirement so they aren't eating cat food when they're old.
Also if you have any interest in moving into more of a leadership type roll, even if you want to stay mostly technical (i.e. technical lead, software architect) social skills become even more important.
Apparently spelling and grammar skills aren't that important.
Please read my other posts - not only did I not complain about a shortage, I went so far as to say that I don't really think there is a shortage.
Sorry, I was only responding to your one post, and assuming that like so many other managers that you might buy into the whole tech-worker shortage idea.
Regardless, I think you're missing my point: my position is that some people, no matter how good their skills are, are a *net negative*,
I agree, at least the way modern companies do their management. I think it's entirely possible to get such people to be productive assets to the company, but almost no companies want to bother actually developing the people-management skills necessary to do so. It can't be done the way companies currently manage employees, and would probably require hiring a bunch of psychologists and developing the appropriate management methods, instead of what companies do now, which is basically take technically-skilled people, and simply promote them into management without any regard for actual skill at dealing with people.
But is it putting an emphasis on people who are easy to manage? Absolutely. Anything else is insanity. I run a business, not some volunteer organization where you work with whatever you've got.
Well it just depends on how much you want to invest in people, and how much you think you'll get out of them with that investment. With some brilliant people who are really, really hard to manage (requiring developing all-new management skills as I outlined above), you'll have to invest a lot of time and money and energy, but who knows, maybe you'll get some really brilliant new products that make your company a fortune. Of course, that's a big gamble. Maybe you'll get less out than other companies that take a safe route, or worse maybe your reinvented-management initiative will be a giant failure. But so many companies keep repeating this "tech worker shortage" mantra, so if there really were such a shortage, they should be doing just as I said, regardless of the risk, because a hard-to-manage employee is better than no employee at all.
It's generational IMO. I never ran into this stuff when I was in college in the early/mid 90s.
That's fine, but then you have zero right to complain about a tech labor "shortage". If there's a shortage, then you should be hiring anyone who's qualified, no matter how bad their interpersonal skills are. It's your job as management to help them succeed as part of the team, and if you can't do that, then you are incompetent.
If you want to take the easy route and only hire people who are easy to manage, that's your prerogative, but you can't complain about any kind of shortage if you do this.
And there is no damn good reason to HAVE to press another key to see the menu bar. Just like how there was no good reason to move tabs above the menu bar,
Yeah, whatever. My point is: these things are very minor changes, and not really that big a deal, when you compare to the Gnome3 UI and what a radical departure it is from traditional desktop UIs.
To make a useless car analogy, you're like someone bitching and complaining about Toyotas changing to a slightly uglier headlight design while GM is making all their vehicles look like Azteks and painting them carnival colors.
You may think it's a joke, but it's not. They may be legally "wives", but in reality many women are just prostitutes. Here's a quick guide to tell the difference: 1) does she bring any significant money into the household herself, or does she just spend all the money you earn? 2) do you actually have a close emotional relationship with her, as in, is she someone who would help you bury a body? Or is she just a house partner and FWB?
Ok, fine. Please prove that Solaris is using sysvinit.
They've all become rotten hipster cults, in my opinion. Mozilla is particularly bad. They've trashed the UI of their most popular product, to an extent that only hipsters can manage. They've employed a strict "we know better than you" hipster attitude toward user complaints about these changes.
You've got to be kidding. The Firefox UI is barely different really. Big deal, you have to press "Alt" to see the menu bar now; whoopee. If you want to see a trashed UI and "we know better than you", GNOME is the poster boy for this stuff.
They've forced out at least one long-time, high-ranking leader merely because his views on an unrelated political matter didn't match their hipster ultra-politically correct beliefs.
No, they forced out their CEO because there was way too much controversy surrounding him. Mozilla isn't just some open-source project like Debian or Gentoo or whatever, it's a full-fledged corporation, and corporate CEOs are partially political positions. You can't have that position filled by someone who doesn't match the publicly-stated corporate values, who makes the corporation look bad, who attracts too much negative attention, etc. Any other for-profit corporation would have done the same in their position, except maybe some crappy company like Comcast which doesn't give a shit about what people think of it since it's a monopoly. Mozilla may be a corporation, but they're a non-profit and funding is critically important to them and public image goes hand-in-hand with that. A bad public image will kill their funding.
This is an entirely different matter than some random FOSS project playing political games with their leadership. Groups like Slackware don't deal with much money or employees, and can do whatever the hell they want. Mozilla isn't like that; it's a corporation.
The next generation is too stupid to learn that lesson in time. We are doomed.
systemd wasn't fixing something that wasn't broken; sysvinit is archaic and has a lot of problems, and it's amazing it's worked as well as it has. Every other UNIX out there has switched to something resembling systemd already. Solaris has SMF, for instance.
The problem with systemd is likely that it tried to do too much, too fast, and attracted a lot of negative attention because of this (also, by enlarging its scope so fast, it's not possible to do as much in-the-field testing, so there's a higher potential for bugs). The overall idea is sound, but the execution could have been done differently.
I don't see the problem here.
That's great (though not what I'd call "conservative"), but it doesn't address sales tax, which is a state and local level issue, and was only being considered federally (with this bill) because so many states were pissed about it. They need to just dump sales tax altogether (i.e., ban it at the federal level), and if a consumption tax really is necessary, then levy it at the federal level only as a VAT just like every other first-world country does. A single VAT (payable to a single governmental entitiy) would be fairly simple for internet merchants to deal with, and would eliminate all the avoidance of use taxes. But if they're going to keep their crazy and arcane scheme of sales taxes with 10,000 jurisdictions, forget it. And the idea of requiring merchants to use a third-party processor to handle sales taxes is wrong too, since 1) that processor won't know what is and isn't taxable except for some general things (i.e. shipping), and 2) requiring people to use particular for-profit businesses is fascism.
So you prefer fucking over poorer people with regressive sales taxes, and letting the rich off easy, and somehow the poorer classes should be the ones doing all the sacrificing? Got it.
People like you are why this country is in a mess. You spout shit like "taking the good with the bad" and because of this you advocate horrible legislation that would put an undue burden on small-business owners, giving a huge advantage to big businesses like Amazon and local big-box stores. There's 10,000 tax jurisdictions in the US, each one with completely different rules about what can be taxed, and at what rate. In some states, shipping is taxable, in others it isn't. In some states, clothing is taxable, in others it isn't. In some states certain items have a lower tax. How the hell is some small-business owner supposed to figure all that out for 10,000 different jurisdictions?
And why do stupid liberals like you love sales taxes so much anyway? They're the most regressive form of taxation and hurt poor people the most. Obviously you're OK with making the poor working-class stiffs take the good with the bad, while letting your ultra-rich cronies at Comcast and Citibank off.
If getting stuff done means a shitty internet sales tax law, then no, I don't want to get things done.
But there is an argument that physical retailers are unfairly hurt when people can use them as showroom and then go online and purchase the items without sales tax.
Too bad. Have you forgotten about shipping charges? If the retailer's price with sales tax is higher than the online price with shipping costs (plus the inconvenience factor of having to fumble around on web sites and then wait a week for it to arrive, unless you pay even more for faster shipping), then the retailer is charging too much and deserves to go under.
It's not that at all, it's that this is one of the (probably few) issues where Republicans simply have the right idea, and Democrats are firmly in the wrong.
Another issue where Democrats are totally wrong is with patent reform. The Repubs want to reform the patent system somewhat to stop patent trolls, while the Dems apparently love patent trolls and have blocked this reform.
Won't work, for the reasons the AC responder said. This company won't know whether your product/service is taxable or not, or if it needs to be taxed at a different rate, etc. They're not going to employ human representatives to look at every single thing you sell and make a determination.
Here's my suggestion: all the states have to agree on a single tax rate, nationwide, and a single set of rules (e.g., groceries are not taxable, clothing isn't taxable or is reduced, etc.). Then there's a single federal-level agency where the tax money is remitted and distributed to the right state. No localities can levy additional sales taxes. Until all this happens, no nationwide sales tax is allowed.
No, it sounds like gridlock is actually better. Without gridlock, we'd get a Congress that would pass an internet sales tax bill. With gridlock, the bill dies, which is exactly what I want to see happen.
So strangely, I actually have to cheer for the Republican takeover on this issue.